A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Matthew Campbell]

Here is one comment that was posted on Slashdot regarding ZipSpeak and
probably Speakup in general:

(begin quote)

   This is nothing but a threat to independent producers, and
   "slashdot"'s unquestioning boosting of a LinusX technology in this
   specialised and delicate market is inappropriate. Although the goal of
   having universal access to LinusX is laudable, that is not what this
   product offers. Rather, it offers access for the blind so long as they
   buy a speech synthesiser which is on the approved list. Those of us
   who make speech syntehsisers which didn't make it onto this hallowed
   team end up losing a whole chunk of our market because, even though
   our synthesisers offer a lot of important functionality for the blind
   ("easy listening" modulated voices, automatic timbre management,
   etc.), we didn't promote our product at the right time to the right
   developer.
   
   This product is particularly cruel as it locks in people forever to an
   inferior technology, by exploting the fact that they need speech
   synthesis if they are to run Linux at all. Zipspeak should be forced
   to provide support for all speech synthesiser by writing the
   appropriate drivers, and should forfeit their FDA approval and the
   tax-deductibility of their product if they continue to tilt the
   playing field for synthesisers. It is wholly irresponsible of them to
   come into an orderly marketplace and shake things up like this. We
   never had these problems with Apple (a company which, IMO, really
   "gets it" with regard to open standards) and only a few with
   Microsoft. What a shame that the so-called "altruists" of the LinusX
   community couldn't be a bit more understanding.
   
   Stephen Mundy
   
   --Murrinco

(end quote)

What have we done wrong?  Or what have I done wrong?  Should I have
delayed my release of ZipSpeak until there were drivers for all known
synthesizers?  Or should I have spent my spring break writing
synthesizer drivers?  I probably couldn't anyway, because I know
little about kernel programming and don't have any documentation for
synthesizers other than the DoubleTalk (though I could have learned
some from Emacspeak driver code).  Perhaps I should release an updated
ZipSpeak with the new drivers which are on the Speakup FTP site, even
though they're not yet in the official Speakup release.  But I figured
that since they're not in the official Speakup release, they probably
aren't ready for general use yet.

I really didn't mean any harm to the makers of unsupported speech
synthesizers, but I guess this person doesn't think so.  What do you
all think?

-- 
Matt Campbell <mattcamp@crosswinds.net>
Web site:  http://www.crosswinds.net/~mattcamp/
ICQ #:  33005941

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[cpt.kirk]

I think that you did the right thing. You created something that can be
used be a sizable market chuck and released. You have made it clear (to us
anyway) that you will continue to add support as it becomes available.

The attitude of the author is that unless you can support everybody, don't
support anybody. She clearly does not understand GPL and GNU and should go
back to her M$ world. Perhaps this is quite blunt. But some people make me
want to throw up for trying to help others. The same author would also
throw a fit over the idea of a speech access PDA.But then again, I think
there is a self promotion of a product here. And it comes at the expense
of others.

Message I heard was: If you can't use my product, you should be banned.



Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Your fly might be open (but don't check it just now).

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Victor Tsaran]

HI, Mat!
I cannot hold my anger inside. You haven't done anything wrong and, vice
versa, we all are grateful to you for your gracious offer. Even though I
myself gave up on UMSDOS-based Linux, due to the inferiority of UMSDOS file
system, I very much value and praise people who put their own time in order to
make life easier for others.
I think we should post our strong oposition to what this guy said. He
mentioned something about Aple. Everyone knows that Aple has done nothing to
make their operating system accessible to the blind.
Terrible to know that such people, like the author of that message, exist.
WHere was this posted?

Regards,
Victor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Campbell" <mattcamp@crosswinds.net>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 1:48 PM
Subject: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me


| Here is one comment that was posted on Slashdot regarding ZipSpeak and
| probably Speakup in general:
|
| (begin quote)
|
|    This is nothing but a threat to independent producers, and
|    "slashdot"'s unquestioning boosting of a LinusX technology in this
|    specialised and delicate market is inappropriate. Although the goal of
|    having universal access to LinusX is laudable, that is not what this
|    product offers. Rather, it offers access for the blind so long as they
|    buy a speech synthesiser which is on the approved list. Those of us
|    who make speech syntehsisers which didn't make it onto this hallowed
|    team end up losing a whole chunk of our market because, even though
|    our synthesisers offer a lot of important functionality for the blind
|    ("easy listening" modulated voices, automatic timbre management,
|    etc.), we didn't promote our product at the right time to the right
|    developer.
|
|    This product is particularly cruel as it locks in people forever to an
|    inferior technology, by exploting the fact that they need speech
|    synthesis if they are to run Linux at all. Zipspeak should be forced
|    to provide support for all speech synthesiser by writing the
|    appropriate drivers, and should forfeit their FDA approval and the
|    tax-deductibility of their product if they continue to tilt the
|    playing field for synthesisers. It is wholly irresponsible of them to
|    come into an orderly marketplace and shake things up like this. We
|    never had these problems with Apple (a company which, IMO, really
|    "gets it" with regard to open standards) and only a few with
|    Microsoft. What a shame that the so-called "altruists" of the LinusX
|    community couldn't be a bit more understanding.
|
|    Stephen Mundy
|
|    --Murrinco
|
| (end quote)
|
| What have we done wrong?  Or what have I done wrong?  Should I have
| delayed my release of ZipSpeak until there were drivers for all known
| synthesizers?  Or should I have spent my spring break writing
| synthesizer drivers?  I probably couldn't anyway, because I know
| little about kernel programming and don't have any documentation for
| synthesizers other than the DoubleTalk (though I could have learned
| some from Emacspeak driver code).  Perhaps I should release an updated
| ZipSpeak with the new drivers which are on the Speakup FTP site, even
| though they're not yet in the official Speakup release.  But I figured
| that since they're not in the official Speakup release, they probably
| aren't ready for general use yet.
|
| I really didn't mean any harm to the makers of unsupported speech
| synthesizers, but I guess this person doesn't think so.  What do you
| all think?
|
| --
| Matt Campbell <mattcamp@crosswinds.net>
| Web site:  http://www.crosswinds.net/~mattcamp/
| ICQ #:  33005941
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| Speakup mailing list
| Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
| http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Mike Gorse]

I am curious which synthesizer this developer was working on, and if it is
hardware-based or software-based.  If it is hardware-based, then it would
be good if this person could point to specifications to help people write
Linux support for it if such support doesn't already exist in any
form.  The issues are obviously different if we're dealing with a
software-based synth (ie, it would explicitly need to support Linux).

And I should probably post this to slashdot; maybe I will later on.

On a different subject, I applied for a slashdot account a long time ago
but never got my password (don't know if I typoed my email address or
what).  Does anyone know who I should contact about this?

--Michael Gorse, WPI Cs '01 / ICQ:22583968 / http://www.wpi.edu/~mgorse/ --
     If you're an oister, then don't let your perl get away from you.

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[cpt.kirk]

I have been looking at the thread and nder about what planet some of the
people come from. Where did the load of crap about M$ being blind
friendly. I saw the IE4 release and they broke everything they had been
working on. It took more then 6 months for the screen readers to recover.

And they treated two people who worked their like crap. Therse people were
moved into the call queue from hell because the phone wasn't accessible.
And get this, they had a means of making it accessible. It would only have
taken changing the way the phone rings. What a load...

Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Your fly might be open (but don't check it just now).

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[cpt.kirk]

Ok, I have posted a response on slashdot concerning this. I put out a
valid email address where this person can contact someone if he really
cares to help. My opinion is that he sounds like a leach trying to drain
technology money. But if he really cares then he should offer support for
getting his product supported.

Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Your fly might be open (but don't check it just now).

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Tommy Moore]

Hey there Matt. Zipspeak is a great solution to help beginners get hooked
on linux. I guess as different synths are added to the speakup package
you'll have to come out with new versions of zipspeak, but that's no
problem.
I wonder how hard it would to change the full slackware to make it work
like yours does.
Actually it wouldn't be too bad. I think all it really would need would be
a kernel replacement and the loadspk program be added to the a disk
series.I thinkI still have the cd around. I'll look in to seeing if I can
make one.

What do you guys think? Since it's only a simple modification of the
kernel that changes it, would it be worth it to have the iso stored on the
speakup site or would it be better if I hosted it on my own site  here at
school?

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Victor Tsaran]

Very good.
Well-said too.
Regards,
Vic

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <cpt.kirk@1tree.net>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me


| Ok, I have posted a response on slashdot concerning this. I put out a
| valid email address where this person can contact someone if he really
| cares to help. My opinion is that he sounds like a leach trying to drain
| technology money. But if he really cares then he should offer support for
| getting his product supported.
| 
| Kirk Wood
| Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
| ------------------
| 
| Your fly might be open (but don't check it just now).
| 
| 
| _______________________________________________
| Speakup mailing list
| Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
| http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Kirk Reiser]

Hi Matt and all:  If you wish to respond to the person that posted
this article, you can point out the speakup will support any synth
that we have the specs for and a working unit.  There is no hallowed
list.  I suspect that this person wouldn't be happy no matter what it
was.  If it's free, it potentially steels their ability to sell a
product.  I would like to know what synth they make though.

I would like to say welcome to all of the new subscribers.  The
subscription list has grown significantly since Matt posted the
zipspeak announcement.

  Kirk

-- 

Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
phone: (519) 661-3061

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[cpt.kirk]

Kirk,

That is why I posted what I did. I know there isn't a list of limited
synths. If he responds to me, I will certainly direct him towards you. I
feel he is one of the leaches. I have seen too much of that kind of thing.
Many products sold for access are needlessly high in price. The companies
haven't put much back into the system.

If his company really wants to help, they can give up a sample to get it
supported. I will gladly let the world know his company has done so. If I
track him down and they don't I will also let the world know they are
leaches.

Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Your fly might be open (but don't check it just now).

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Victor Tsaran]

One thing I think you pointed out correctly is that many of these companies
charge too high, but use very low-quality components in their products. Let's
not point our fingers to particular units.
Regards,
Vic

----- Original Message -----
From: <cpt.kirk@1tree.net>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me


| Kirk,
|
| That is why I posted what I did. I know there isn't a list of limited
| synths. If he responds to me, I will certainly direct him towards you. I
| feel he is one of the leaches. I have seen too much of that kind of thing.
| Many products sold for access are needlessly high in price. The companies
| haven't put much back into the system.
|
| If his company really wants to help, they can give up a sample to get it
| supported. I will gladly let the world know his company has done so. If I
| track him down and they don't I will also let the world know they are
| leaches.
|
| Kirk Wood
| Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
| ------------------
|
| Your fly might be open (but don't check it just now).
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| Speakup mailing list
| Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
| http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Dave Talmage]

Hi All,

The level of ignorance of Stephen Munde, whoever he may be, is amazing.  You
rarely get the opportunity to see self serving stupidity at such an
advanced stage.  I'm sure our best interest is utmost in his mind.
The undertone of Stephen's message is diametrically opposed to the stated
one.  He is basically saying all or nothing, but what he actually means is
how dare you provide a product for free that may take part of my market
share.
Mr. Munde must also either think there aren't many around still, or that we
have short memories, regarding the supposed good days when Apple ruled the
market for blind computer users.  I still cringe thinking about all the hoops
I used to jump through trying to get applications to talk with my Apple IIe,
as well as the applications I never was able to get talking.  I also remember
getting a RC Systems Slotbuster card just so I could have access to
AppleWorks.
As for the all or nothing aspect, I personally don't know of any software
that works with every synthesizer, braille display, and magnifier.  It's
funny, but I always thought that software manufacturers developed support for
the most popular first and then added to their list as time went on.  I maybe
mistaken, but I thought it had something to do with selling more copies to an
established user base.  I'm sure that Apple and Microsoft have their entirely
comprehensive list of hardware and check it twice, like Santa Claus, to make
sure they don't forget anybody.  Why also, did he single out zipspeak anyway?
As for the orderly market, what planet are they from?  Mr. Munde's statement
outwardly appears to be an excellent example of why the Free Software
Foundation was founded and why Linux has become so popular, but his views
don't support the concept of a free market ecconmy and competition either.
The part about being locked in forever to inferior technology is laughable. 
Don't I wish I could have bought 1 synthesizer back when I started using
computers and have been done with it.  I haven't actually counted lately, but
I must be on my 7th or 8th synthesizer by now, to say nothing of computers. 
By the way, who is the judge of inferior verses advanced technology anyhow?
As for the FDA approval, what the he!! is he talking about?  Tax
deductibility for zipspeak???  It's free Mr. Munde, that's why they call it
free software.
Regarding forcing zipspeak to support all available hardware, I firmly
believe this as well, provided that someone provide a staff of 100 with
annual salaries between $50,000 and $75,000.  Maybe a consortium of hardware
manufacturers should be forced by Mr. Munde's FDA to foot the bill.  Where do
I sign up for one of the positions?
In case you can't tell by the tone of my message, this ticked me off just a
bit.
In closing, I'd like to say thanks to Matt, as well as the folks at Speakup. 
I've just taken a quick look at zipslack so far, but I'm impressed, and
apparently you have at least one person worried.  I was impressed enough with
both the Slackware distribution of Linux, and Speakup as well, that I've been
downloading a copy of slackware in the background all day in order to replace
my old Redhat 5.2 with its 2.0.36 kernel.  Let me assure you, downloading a
635MB iso96 image over a 56K modem is not a quick operation.

Dave
\x1a

At 12:48 PM 3/24/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Here is one comment that was posted on Slashdot regarding ZipSpeak and
>probably Speakup in general:
>
>(begin quote)
>
>   This is nothing but a threat to independent producers, and
>   "slashdot"'s unquestioning boosting of a LinusX technology in this
>   specialised and delicate market is inappropriate. Although the goal of
>   having universal access to LinusX is laudable, that is not what this
>   product offers. Rather, it offers access for the blind so long as they
>   buy a speech synthesiser which is on the approved list. Those of us
>   who make speech syntehsisers which didn't make it onto this hallowed
>   team end up losing a whole chunk of our market because, even though
>   our synthesisers offer a lot of important functionality for the blind
>   ("easy listening" modulated voices, automatic timbre management,
>   etc.), we didn't promote our product at the right time to the right
>   developer.
>   
>   This product is particularly cruel as it locks in people forever to an
>   inferior technology, by exploting the fact that they need speech
>   synthesis if they are to run Linux at all. Zipspeak should be forced
>   to provide support for all speech synthesiser by writing the
>   appropriate drivers, and should forfeit their FDA approval and the
>   tax-deductibility of their product if they continue to tilt the
>   playing field for synthesisers. It is wholly irresponsible of them to
>   come into an orderly marketplace and shake things up like this. We
>   never had these problems with Apple (a company which, IMO, really
>   "gets it" with regard to open standards) and only a few with
>   Microsoft. What a shame that the so-called "altruists" of the LinusX
>   community couldn't be a bit more understanding.
>   
>   Stephen Mundy
>   
>   --Murrinco
>
>(end quote)
>
>What have we done wrong?  Or what have I done wrong?  Should I have
>delayed my release of ZipSpeak until there were drivers for all known
>synthesizers?  Or should I have spent my spring break writing
>synthesizer drivers?  I probably couldn't anyway, because I know
>little about kernel programming and don't have any documentation for
>synthesizers other than the DoubleTalk (though I could have learned
>some from Emacspeak driver code).  Perhaps I should release an updated
>ZipSpeak with the new drivers which are on the Speakup FTP site, even
>though they're not yet in the official Speakup release.  But I figured
>that since they're not in the official Speakup release, they probably
>aren't ready for general use yet.
>
>I really didn't mean any harm to the makers of unsupported speech
>synthesizers, but I guess this person doesn't think so.  What do you
>all think?
>
>-- 
>Matt Campbell <mattcamp@crosswinds.net>
>Web site:  http://www.crosswinds.net/~mattcamp/
>ICQ #:  33005941
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[kestrell]

I think comments like the one quoted from the article are a hoot. After
all, the main reason I am interested in learning linux is that I won't be
at the mercy of self-serving meglomaniacs trying to tell me my ONLY
options are the the soundcards and screenreading programs with thousand
dollar pricetags that they and ONLY they can sell me. Possibly the biggest
problem in putting together a system for someone who is visually impaired
is getting legitimate unbiased consumer information, and sadly, the
shouting contest as sales pitch does work on some people while learning to
disregard the disinformation. I went through this in the early nineties
when I wanted to put together my first Windows machine, and had to deal
with everyone from my Commission for the Blind agency, whose idea of
adaptive tech was what they read in the pretty  brochures they got sent,
to my blind friends who kept telling me a Windows system would never be
worth the trouble for a blind computer user. The blind computer user is
like every other computer user, stuck between big business tactics and the
basic laziness of most consumers who don't do their homework, and the
corporations know it. It's like a race: keep your mind on the goal and
ignore the extraneous noise. Also, keeping a box of salt --take 2 grains
with every hardware/software review you read--helps too.

Trying to keep a sense of outrage balanced with a sense of humor,

Yours,
kestrell



"...it is only with the heart that one can see rightly. 
What is essential is invisible to the eye." 

~Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Brian Borowski]

Hey: I don't think I'd worry about this complaint too much.  There's
nothing wrong with linux and speech, as this person seems to imply, and if
companies have synthesizers they want to have drivers for, either they
right them, or send what's needed to those who are capable of writing
them, (that's you Kirk).

The whole thing will get more robust and easier to use with more
flexibility as time goes on; it wasn't too long ago that it could only
work with DoubleTalk, so keep up the work with those distributions Mat and
the others.

Brian Borowski



On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Matthew Campbell wrote:

> Here is one comment that was posted on Slashdot regarding ZipSpeak and
> probably Speakup in general:
> 
> (begin quote)
> 
>    This is nothing but a threat to independent producers, and
>    "slashdot"'s unquestioning boosting of a LinusX technology in this
>    specialised and delicate market is inappropriate. Although the goal of
>    having universal access to LinusX is laudable, that is not what this
>    product offers. Rather, it offers access for the blind so long as they
>    buy a speech synthesiser which is on the approved list. Those of us
>    who make speech syntehsisers which didn't make it onto this hallowed
>    team end up losing a whole chunk of our market because, even though
>    our synthesisers offer a lot of important functionality for the blind
>    ("easy listening" modulated voices, automatic timbre management,
>    etc.), we didn't promote our product at the right time to the right
>    developer.
>    
>    This product is particularly cruel as it locks in people forever to an
>    inferior technology, by exploting the fact that they need speech
>    synthesis if they are to run Linux at all. Zipspeak should be forced
>    to provide support for all speech synthesiser by writing the
>    appropriate drivers, and should forfeit their FDA approval and the
>    tax-deductibility of their product if they continue to tilt the
>    playing field for synthesisers. It is wholly irresponsible of them to
>    come into an orderly marketplace and shake things up like this. We
>    never had these problems with Apple (a company which, IMO, really
>    "gets it" with regard to open standards) and only a few with
>    Microsoft. What a shame that the so-called "altruists" of the LinusX
>    community couldn't be a bit more understanding.
>    
>    Stephen Mundy
>    
>    --Murrinco
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> What have we done wrong?  Or what have I done wrong?  Should I have
> delayed my release of ZipSpeak until there were drivers for all known
> synthesizers?  Or should I have spent my spring break writing
> synthesizer drivers?  I probably couldn't anyway, because I know
> little about kernel programming and don't have any documentation for
> synthesizers other than the DoubleTalk (though I could have learned
> some from Emacspeak driver code).  Perhaps I should release an updated
> ZipSpeak with the new drivers which are on the Speakup FTP site, even
> though they're not yet in the official Speakup release.  But I figured
> that since they're not in the official Speakup release, they probably
> aren't ready for general use yet.
> 
> I really didn't mean any harm to the makers of unsupported speech
> synthesizers, but I guess this person doesn't think so.  What do you
> all think?
> 
> -- 
> Matt Campbell <mattcamp@crosswinds.net>
> Web site:  http://www.crosswinds.net/~mattcamp/
> ICQ #:  33005941
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Janina Sajka]

I agree with Kirk. I don't recognize this name or this company name
either. No idea what synth they're talking about, but then, if they wrote
it for the Mac, well ...




				Janina Sajka, Director
				Information Systems Research & Development
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

janina@afb.net


On 24 Mar 2000, Kirk Reiser wrote:

> Hi Matt and all:  If you wish to respond to the person that posted
> this article, you can point out the speakup will support any synth
> that we have the specs for and a working unit.  There is no hallowed
> list.  I suspect that this person wouldn't be happy no matter what it
> was.  If it's free, it potentially steels their ability to sell a
> product.  I would like to know what synth they make though.
> 
> I would like to say welcome to all of the new subscribers.  The
> subscription list has grown significantly since Matt posted the
> zipspeak announcement.
> 
>   Kirk
> 
> -- 
> 
> Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
> e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
> phone: (519) 661-3061
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

RE: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Ron Kassen]

Seems to me that this person needs to be patient and remember that this is a
developing market.  Maybe I am not angry because I have a supported
synthesizer, but if they are really interested in their speech synthesizer
working with Linux, then maybe they should learn the code and write the
drive - maybe get involved with the group of people making this happen.  I
encourage your work, keep it up, I know that eventually there will be more
supported synthesizers.  There will be people who pitch in and come up with
ideas/ways of writing drivers for unsupported synthesizers.  I have to go
back to the dos days, when there were very few synthesizers support by some
programs.  It just took some time for the list of supported synthesizers to
develop.  The "hallowed list", as this writer puts it, are probably the most
commonly used synthesizers on the market.  This is not a bad thing.

RK

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca
[mailto:speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca]On Behalf Of Matthew Campbell
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 12:49 PM
To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca
Subject: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me


Here is one comment that was posted on Slashdot regarding ZipSpeak and
probably Speakup in general:

(begin quote)

   This is nothing but a threat to independent producers, and
   "slashdot"'s unquestioning boosting of a LinusX technology in this
   specialised and delicate market is inappropriate. Although the goal of
   having universal access to LinusX is laudable, that is not what this
   product offers. Rather, it offers access for the blind so long as they
   buy a speech synthesiser which is on the approved list. Those of us
   who make speech syntehsisers which didn't make it onto this hallowed
   team end up losing a whole chunk of our market because, even though
   our synthesisers offer a lot of important functionality for the blind
   ("easy listening" modulated voices, automatic timbre management,
   etc.), we didn't promote our product at the right time to the right
   developer.

   This product is particularly cruel as it locks in people forever to an
   inferior technology, by exploting the fact that they need speech
   synthesis if they are to run Linux at all. Zipspeak should be forced
   to provide support for all speech synthesiser by writing the
   appropriate drivers, and should forfeit their FDA approval and the
   tax-deductibility of their product if they continue to tilt the
   playing field for synthesisers. It is wholly irresponsible of them to
   come into an orderly marketplace and shake things up like this. We
   never had these problems with Apple (a company which, IMO, really
   "gets it" with regard to open standards) and only a few with
   Microsoft. What a shame that the so-called "altruists" of the LinusX
   community couldn't be a bit more understanding.

   Stephen Mundy

   --Murrinco

(end quote)

What have we done wrong?  Or what have I done wrong?  Should I have
delayed my release of ZipSpeak until there were drivers for all known
synthesizers?  Or should I have spent my spring break writing
synthesizer drivers?  I probably couldn't anyway, because I know
little about kernel programming and don't have any documentation for
synthesizers other than the DoubleTalk (though I could have learned
some from Emacspeak driver code).  Perhaps I should release an updated
ZipSpeak with the new drivers which are on the Speakup FTP site, even
though they're not yet in the official Speakup release.  But I figured
that since they're not in the official Speakup release, they probably
aren't ready for general use yet.

I really didn't mean any harm to the makers of unsupported speech
synthesizers, but I guess this person doesn't think so.  What do you
all think?

--
Matt Campbell <mattcamp@crosswinds.net>
Web site:  http://www.crosswinds.net/~mattcamp/
ICQ #:  33005941


_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Peter Persuric]

Hi  Mat, I think if synthasiser manufactures make there synthasisers available
to blind people like me at a resonable price they would have more of them
supported.  I since I don't have a lot of money bought the doubletalk lite
synthasiser for around $300.  I for the longest time wanted to buy a dectalk
synthasiser, but it was what, around $1100 or $1200  Way too much for my
shallow pockets.  I think befor the synthasiser manufacturerers start wining
they should take a good hard look at how much their synthasisers cost, and how
available, and what they themselves the manufacture are willing to do to
continued improvement/support OS wide.  I think what was said in this message
about zipslack was on the inappropriate side of the playing field, what do I
know any way, I don't own or manage a synthasiser company.  Hell, I sent Kirk
my double talk lite for a couple of months so he could work on the problem
with the serial communications between speakup and double talk lite / lite
talk.
  Thanks for doing the zipspeak.zip Mat!
  Pete

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Campbell" <mattcamp@crosswinds.net>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 1:48 PM
Subject: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me


Here is one comment that was posted on Slashdot regarding ZipSpeak and
probably Speakup in general:

(begin quote)

   This is nothing but a threat to independent producers, and
   "slashdot"'s unquestioning boosting of a LinusX technology in this
   specialised and delicate market is inappropriate. Although the goal of
   having universal access to LinusX is laudable, that is not what this
   product offers. Rather, it offers access for the blind so long as they
   buy a speech synthesiser which is on the approved list. Those of us
   who make speech syntehsisers which didn't make it onto this hallowed
   team end up losing a whole chunk of our market because, even though
   our synthesisers offer a lot of important functionality for the blind
   ("easy listening" modulated voices, automatic timbre management,
   etc.), we didn't promote our product at the right time to the right
   developer.

   This product is particularly cruel as it locks in people forever to an
   inferior technology, by exploting the fact that they need speech
   synthesis if they are to run Linux at all. Zipspeak should be forced
   to provide support for all speech synthesiser by writing the
   appropriate drivers, and should forfeit their FDA approval and the
   tax-deductibility of their product if they continue to tilt the
   playing field for synthesisers. It is wholly irresponsible of them to
   come into an orderly marketplace and shake things up like this. We
   never had these problems with Apple (a company which, IMO, really
   "gets it" with regard to open standards) and only a few with
   Microsoft. What a shame that the so-called "altruists" of the LinusX
   community couldn't be a bit more understanding.

   Stephen Mundy

   --Murrinco

(end quote)

What have we done wrong?  Or what have I done wrong?  Should I have
delayed my release of ZipSpeak until there were drivers for all known
synthesizers?  Or should I have spent my spring break writing
synthesizer drivers?  I probably couldn't anyway, because I know
little about kernel programming and don't have any documentation for
synthesizers other than the DoubleTalk (though I could have learned
some from Emacspeak driver code).  Perhaps I should release an updated
ZipSpeak with the new drivers which are on the Speakup FTP site, even
though they're not yet in the official Speakup release.  But I figured
that since they're not in the official Speakup release, they probably
aren't ready for general use yet.

I really didn't mean any harm to the makers of unsupported speech
synthesizers, but I guess this person doesn't think so.  What do you
all think?

--
Matt Campbell <mattcamp@crosswinds.net>
Web site:  http://www.crosswinds.net/~mattcamp/
ICQ #:  33005941


_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Tommy Moore]

Slackeare can be easily installed over serial port.
Don't know about debian, but I think it can.

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Martin G. McCormick]

	That's quite true.  The only thing you don't have is serial
access during the initial configuration such as installation or during
the boot sequence.  Usually, it isn't all that necessary to have the
boot messages talking, but it is nice to have that capability if
something goes wrong and it is time to start being a diagnostition.

	I also got on to slashdot.org and read a lot of the linux VS
Windows thread.  I am not sure if some of those folks are actually
serious with some of their assumptions or are just jerking our chains
to see what we do.

	Anyway, the one thing I have not heard anybody say is that a
text-based interface is usable by everybody by one means or another.
A so-called graphical interface must be modified for any other form of
access.  When blind people use Windows, it is only because there has
been some progress in making it sort of behave like a command line
interface.  There just is not a good way to directly translate purely
visual information in to anything else that works as well.

	There is an interesting experiment that Bell Labs did in 1951.
I remember the year because it happens to be the year I was born so
things like that kind of stand out.

	What they did was to build a rather clever voice synthesizer
for that day out of a spinning wheel with bands of holes in it.  When
the wheel was spun at a certain rate, the holes raced past at
different frequencies.  A light shown through the holes and struck a photo
cell like the kind used in film projectors to convert the wavy band of
the film sound track to speech and music.  By blocking or unblocking
light from different bands of holes, the scientists could produce lots
of musical tones of different pitches.

	The next neat thing they did was to record a human voice on a
spectrograph which draws varying lines on a strip of film that
correspond to all the constituent frequencies in the sound being
recorded.  In this case, it was a man saying "Never kill a snake with
your bare hands."

	They took the film and used it to block and unblock the beams
of light through the bands of holes on their sound generator.  The
bands of holes corresponded to the center frequencies of all the
octave bands on the spectrograph machine.  The result was a voice that
sounds kind of like a DecTalk saying the recorded sentence very
clearly.

	The spectrogram looks like strange light and dark bands on the
film and means little to the eye except maybe that of an engineer, but
it did cause the generator to produce pretty good speech.

	The scientists then tried to make speech of their own by
manually painting spectrograms in a way that they thought would
produce new words and voices.  It never did anything but make weird
noises.

	My whole point is that the easiest way for a person who is
blind to do complex tasks on a computer is to use text.  It may be
that when tactile displays become dirt cheap and we can put our hands
on a screen and feel shapes, we may actually get closer to using a
GUI, but right now, we only use Windows when it can be bludgeoned in to
behaving like a command line.  Think about it.

	By the way, the only reason I remember the Bell Labs
experiments is because they appeared in a Bell Telephone Hour special
in the late fifties on television and I happened later to read about
them while doing a report in Graduate school.  My memory back to
earlier times is probably no better than anybody else's.  Just thought
I had better throw that in.

Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK 
OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group
Tommy Moore writes:
>Serial port accss is allready possible. I used it for months before
>speakup came out. You just have to figure out how to get the serial port
>to let you login off of it so that you can access it from another pc.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Tommy Moore]

Serial port accss is allready possible. I used it for months before
speakup came out. You just have to figure out how to get the serial port
to let you login off of it so that you can access it from another pc.

Re: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me

[Martin G. McCormick]

	I think the commenter on slashdot is misguided.  I don't
happen to have any of the synthesizers on the list, but I still think
that this is a very worthwhile effort and should be continued.  The
only thing I would suggest is to have a raw serial mode option that we
can feed in to another working P.C. if all else fails.  That would
allow anybody to use anything capable of serial data reception.  Of
course, somebody would gripe about that, but there are some who would
gripe if hung with a new rope provided free of charge.

Martin McCormick WB5AGZ